Irish Rail mismanagement: why do they run 4-carriage DARTs at rush hour?

TINA1984

Hilly Bill wrote: »

7%.

Wasn't that 7% related to pensions rather then a pay cut itself?

maninasia

dowlingm wrote: »

As I noted elsewhere, it's always hard to divine what is going on in State companies at the best of times. I don't think it's fair to say IE did nothing about the infrastructure in the last few years. There has been a huge reduction in signal boxes with 100 year old signalling replaced on the Kerry line in addition to the construction of KRP, Ennis-Athenry and Clonsilla-Pace. We could all want more, I do, and faster, but let's not pretend nothing has improved. The Mark 3 issue has been done to death before.

In respect of the matter at hand, DART needs to become truly part of Dublin transportation and ideally would be hived off to be operated by a "Transport for Dublin" sort of entity with a mandate for public accountability including no FOIA exemptions except those common on similar systems. Toronto runs 6 car subway cars all day every day when at least some could be split. Want to know why? They calculated that the amount of time required to marshal them in and out of shorter sets cost more than the extra power consumed to haul emptier trains. Presumably DART made similar calculations but as part of CIE they will only tell you about it if they feel like it.

This is your problem right here, lack of transparency leads to a lack of accountability and decision making favoring the company and staff rather than customers.

Has anybody here even contacted DART/CIE to ask them why this is happening? Irish people are really bet down, if this happened in other places with no explanation there'd be uproar.

Hilly Bill

TINA1984 wrote: »

Wasn't that 7% related to pensions rather then a pay cut itself?

No.

Jamie2k9

Has anybody here even contacted DART/CIE to ask them why this is happening? Irish people are really bet down, if this happened in other places with no explanation there'd be uproar.

Why haven't you contacted them? It doesn't taken the brightest person to realize why its happening. Running 4 instead of 8 carriage trains means 50% savings on electricity and less maintenance required. Doing this 7 days a week and the savings add up...passenger numbers may of dropped also.

MGWR

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Why haven't you contacted them? It doesn't taken the brightest person to realize why its happening. Running 4 instead of 8 carriage trains means 50% savings on electricity and less maintenance required. Doing this 7 days a week and the savings add up...passenger numbers may have dropped also.

No, it's not a fifty percent savings, and perhaps not any savings at all, but more of a loss. Having to move heavier weights in the cars means a harder current draw per motorised unit and more wear and tear on the equipment and track. In the short and long run, they are beating up the trains by making them shorter.

And where have all the signals been replaced on the "whole network"? or farm crossings with bridges in significant numbers? We should have far more 100-mph railways around the entire network if all the signals have been replaced indeed.

Jamie2k9

MGWR wrote: »

No, it's not a fifty percent savings, and perhaps not any savings at all, but more of a loss. Having to move heavier weights in the cars means a harder current draw per motorised unit and more wear and tear on the equipment and track. In the short and long run, they are beating up the trains by making them shorter.

And where have all the signals been replaced on the "whole network"? or farm crossings with bridges in significant numbers? We should have far more 100-mph railways around the entire network if all the signals have been replaced indeed.

Well with all manual level corssings and farm corssings 100mph will not be promitted for large sections of the netowrk. Cork is slightly different as there is none or very few farm crossings and most of the manual corssings are almost beside each other and most close at the same time which just isn't possible on other routes.

So the reducion in size if for fun is it?

When we have a railway which is carrying thousands if no millions of passengers for free every year its just a little difficult for them to spend on upgrades while not increasing fares further for passengers to pay for both freeloaders and upgrade work...

MGWR

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Well with all manual level crossings and farm crossings 100 mph will not be permitted for large sections of the network. Cork is slightly different as there is none or very few farm crossings and most of the manual crossings are almost beside each other and most close at the same time which just isn't possible on other routes.

So the reduction in size is for fun is it?

When we have a railway which is carrying thousands if not millions of passengers for free every year its just a little difficult for them to spend on upgrades while not increasing fares further for passengers to pay for both freeloaders and upgrade work...

It most definitely is "for fun", because it sure cannot be for serious business, especially on the busiest segments of railway; if what is being done is really viable, then we would not see threads like these where people vent their frustration at something that clearly is a detriment to the health of not only the railway but the communities it serves.

And that sounds like an overestimate of free journeys, with all due respect, never mind a diversionary argument. If this is a big issue, then I suspect it warrants its own thread never mind an independent study done on it, that ought to then be touted in all the press outlets.

If the state cannot prioritise the railway network, then they should give it to a private concern that will. The state seems to be getting further and further away from transparency as well.

Jamie2k9

vent their frustration at something that clearly is a detriment to the health of not only the railway but the communities it serves.

Have you every traveled to a city outside Dublin?

And that sounds like an overestimate of free journeys, with all due respect, never mind a diversionary argument. If this is a big issue, then I suspect it warrants its own thread never mind an independent study done on it, that ought to then be touted in all the press outlets.

I don't think its overestimated alone on the train I take on Sunday there is always 25+ pass holders and over a year that would be 1,300 for one single train journey. 1.1 million pass holders and most people will at least make a return journey so that is 2.4 million jounreys and then the people who use it daily or weekly. Then there is the sexond person with a lot of the passes. Numbers will add up fast.

If the state cannot prioritise the railway network, then they should give it to a private concern that will. The state seems to be getting further and further away from transparency as well.

Will agree with that. CIE would be rolling in profits if all pass journeys were payed for and a private operator could demand this or not accept them and we could have a decent network.

hatrickpatrick

davidlacey wrote: »

cost saving! why run a 6 or 8 car set when you can pack everyone in like sardines into 4?

But they're running the 8 car set as well, when nobody's using it. They could literally swap the trains, keep the same driver, at no cost or inconvenience whatsoever to Irish Rail and make life a hell of a lot sweeter for commuters. So why not?

hatrickpatrick

KD345 wrote: »

I'm assuming that train will remain in service during peak hours. While you might be on it at 14.25, on it's return journey from Bray, it'll be hitting peak time hours and those extra carriages will be required.

That's exactly what I'm saying in my OP though, at peak hours you get the tiny feckers, the four carriagers with enough people on them to give any fire safety inspector an aneurism. So why don't they swap them?